1、System of Systems Engineering and Process Synchronization,Jo Ann Lane jolaneusc.edu University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering, USC CSE 2008,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,2,Overview,System of Systems (SoS) and SoS Engineering (SoSE) Environment Life Cyc
2、le Implications ICM SoS Special Case Process Synchronization in an SoSE Environment Conclusions,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,3,Key Definitions,System of Systems (SoS) Very large systems developed by creating a framework or architecture to integrate constituent systems Typica
3、lly software-intensive and net-centric SoS constituent systems independently developed and managed SoS constituent systems have their own purpose Constituent systems can dynamically come and go from SoS System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) “The process of planning, analyzing, organizing, and integra
4、ting the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems capability that is greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. This processes emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among s
5、ystems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes.” USAF 2005,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,4,Recent Research Findings*,Many types of SoS and associated modes of SoSE Directed (example: Future Combat Systems) Acknowledged (most SoSs wit
6、h a defined SoSE team to guide, but not manage constituent systems) Collaborative (example: Internet) Virtual (examples: Web/social systems) SoSE Teams: Varying degrees of responsibility and authority Incorporating many agile-like approaches to handle Multiple constituent systems Asynchronous activi
7、ties and events Quickly take advantage of opportunities as they appear SoSE Must support multiple purposes and visions Requires significantly more negotiation Is content to satisfice rather than optimize SoSE activities map to traditional SE activities (e.g., DAG and EIA 632), but take on a differen
8、t focus and scope,* Based on USC CSSE SoSE cost model research and OSD SoS SE pilot studies,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,5,SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities: Reported Differences,Architecting Architecting composability vs. decomposition (Meilich 2006) Net-friendly v
9、s. hierarchical (Meilich 2006) Prototypes/experimentation/tradeoffs Early tradeoffs/evaluations of alternatives (Finley 2006) Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation; aided by ongoing experimentation (USAF 2005) Modeling and simulation, in particular to better understand “
10、emergent behaviors” (Finley 2006) First order tradeoffs above the component systems level (e.g., more optimal at the SoS level, instead of at the component system level) (Garber 2006) Discovery and application of convergence protocols (USAF 2005),Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008
11、,6,SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities: Reported Differences (continued),Scope and performance Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability (USAF 2005) Human as part of the SoS (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006, USAF 2005) Organizational scope defined at runtime instead of at syste
12、m development time (Meilich 2006) Dynamic reconfiguration of architecture as needs change (Meilich 2006) Maintenance and evolution Component systems separately acquired and continue to be managed as independent systems (USAF 2005),Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,7,SoSE Core Ele
13、ments*,* OUSD AT&L, 2008,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,8,SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities: Key Challenges for DoD SoSE,Business model and incentives to encourage working together at the SoS level (Garber 2006) Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level (Garber 2
14、006) Human-system integration (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006) Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies at the SoS level (Pair 2006) Removing multiple decision making layers (Pair 2006) Requiring accountability at the enterprise level (Pair 2006) Evolution management (Meilich 2006) Maturi
15、ty of technology (Finley 2006),For the most part, SoSE appears to be SE+ organized in new ways and with new challenges,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,9,Life Cycle Implications,For the SoS, the life cycle model and associated processes need to Identify and respond to change qui
16、ckly Combine both rigor and agility to provide needed SoS capabilities in the needed timeframe Provide for extensive modeling and simulation early on to Investigate alternatives and potential new technologies Understand potential SoS emergent behaviors Provide flexibility to handle the asynchronous
17、nature of constituent system upgrades and evolution For the constituent systems, the life cycle model and associate processes need to Accommodate the expanding number of stakeholders as the system becomes part of one or more SoSs Attempt to synchronize (to the extent possible) the implementation of
18、their part of SoS capabilities with other constituent systems,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,10,What is the ICM?,Risk-driven framework for tailoring system life-cycle processes Integrates the strengths of phased and risk-driven spiral process models Synthesizes together princi
19、ples critical to successful system development Commitment and accountability of system sponsors Success-critical stakeholder satisficing Incremental growth of system definition and stakeholder commitment Concurrent engineering Iterative development cycles Risk-based activity levels and anchor point
20、milestones,Principles trump diagrams,Used by 60-80% of CrossTalk Top-5 projects, 2002-2005,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,11,Common Risk-Driven Special Cases of the ICM,C4ISR: Command, Control, Computing, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. CDR: Critica
21、l Design Review. DCR: Development Commitment Review. FRP: Full-Rate Production. HMI: Human-Machine Interface. HW: Hard ware. IOC: Initial Operational Capability. LRIP: Low-Rate Initial Production. NDI: Non-Development Item. SW: Software,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,12,Case 9
22、: Multi-Owner SoS,Biggest risks: all those of Case 8 plus Large scale, high complexity, rapid change, mixed high/low criticality, partial NDI support, mixed personnel capability (same as Case 8-Hybrid Agile/Plan-Driven) Need to synchronize/integrate separately-managed, independently-evolving systems
23、 Extremely large-scale; deep supplier hierarchies Rapid adaptation to change extremely difficult Examples: Net-centric military operations and global supply chains Size/complexity: Very high Anticipated change rate (% per month): Mixed parts; 1-10% Criticality: Very high NDI support: Many NDIs; some
24、 in place Organization and personnel capability: Related experience, medium to high Key Stage I activities: Full ICM; extensive multi-owner teambuilding, negotiation Key Stage II activities: Full ICM; large ongoing system/software engineering effort Time/build: 2-4 months Time/increment:18-24 months
25、,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,13,SoSE Synchronization Points,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,14,Conclusions,SoSE teams are evolving traditional methods to support the development and on-going evolution of SoSs Early feasibility assessments and tradeoff
26、analyses Knowing when to engineer and when not to engineer In general, leave the constituent systems engineering to the constituent system engineers Constituent system monitoring to ensure that constituent system changes are not adversely impacting the SoS Combining agile with traditional approaches
27、 Increases concurrency Reduces risk Compresses schedules The ICM special case for SoSs can provide both the rigor and the flexibility needed to achieve SoS goals A key to success is the ability to maintain an SoS integration lab to Support modeling and simulation activities Provide for SoS increment
28、al integrations and test Synchronize the roll-out of SoS capabilities,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,15,Workshop Issues, Goals, and Approach,ICM provides a tailorable framework for SoSE, but there are many devils in the details Key SoSE core elements are identified in the OUSD
29、 AT&L SoS SE Guidebook OUSD AT&L, 2008 Summarized on next charts Proposed workshop goals and approach Discuss SoSE core elements in context of chart #13 Identify, prioritize key SoSE issues Discuss solution approaches for top-priority issues Evaluate degree of payoff, difficulty of solution approach
30、es on 0-10 scale Prepare summary briefing,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,16,SoSE Core Element Descriptions*,Translating capability objectives Developing a basic understanding of the expectations of the SoS and the core requirements for meeting these expectations, independent o
31、f the systems that comprise the SoS Understanding systems and relationships In a SoS, the focus is on the systems which contribute to SoS SE capabilities and their interrelationships (as opposed to in a system, the focus is on boundaries and interfaces) Assessing actual performance to capability obj
32、ectives Establishing SoS metrics and methods for assessing performance and conducting evaluations of actual performance using metrics and methods Developing, evolving, and maintaining an SoS architecture/design Establishing and maintaining a persistent framework for addressing the evolution of the S
33、oS to meet user needs, including possible changes in systems functionality, performance or interfaces,* OUSD AT&L, 2008,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,17,SoSE Core Element Descriptions* (continued),Monitoring and assessing changes Monitoring proposed or potential changes and a
34、ssessing their impacts to: Identify opportunities for enhanced functionality & performance, and Preclude or mitigate problems for the SoS and constituent systems (this may include negotiating with the constituent system over how the change is made, in order to preclude SoS impacts) Addressing new re
35、quirements and options Reviewing, prioritizing, and determining which SoS requirements to implement next Orchestrating upgrades to SoS Planning, facilitating, integrating, testing changes in systems to meet SoS needs,* OUSD AT&L, 2008,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,18,Candidat
36、e Agile Change Processing and Rebaselining to Support Monitoring and Assessing Changes,Assess Changes, Propose Handling,Stabilized Increment-N Development Team,Change Proposers,Future IncrementManagers,Agile Future- Increment Rebaselining Team,Negotiate change disposition,Formulate, analyze options
37、in context of other changes,Handle Accepted Increment-N changes,Discuss, resolve deferrals to future increments,Propose Changes,Discuss, revise, defer, or drop,Rebaseline future-increment LCA packages,Prepare for rebaselined future-increment development,Defer some Increment-N capabilities,Recommend
38、handling in current increment,Accept changes,Handle in current rebaseline,Proposed changes,Recommend no action, provide rationale,Recommend deferrals to future increments,Lane: SoSE and Process Synchronization, USC CSSE 2008,19,References,Dahmann, J. (2007); “Systems of Systems Challenges for System
39、s Engineering”, Systems and Software Technology Conference, June 2007. DiMario, Mike (2006); “System of Systems Characteristics and Interoperability in Joint Command Control”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 6
40、32: Processes for Engineering a System Finley, James (2006); “Keynote Address”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Garber, Vitalij (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference INCOSE (2006); Systems Enginee
41、ring Handbook, Version 3, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03 Krygiel, A. (1999); Behind the Wizards Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33 Lane, J., Boehm, B., Modern Tools to Support DoD Software Intensive System of Systems Cost Estimation, Data and Analysis Center for Software, August 2007. Lane,
42、J., Valerdi, R., “Synthesizing System-of-Systems Concepts for Use in Cost Modeling,” Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2007. Maier, M. (1998); “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp 267-284) Meilich, Abe (2006); “System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and Architecture Challenges in a Net Centric Environment”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD AT Public Release SAB-TR-05-04,
